Post by Drifter on Sept 2, 2014 6:35:18 GMT
Thought I would go back through some of the old AETV threads that I had saved and re-post them in the appropriate folder.
This first one is from Arch, and it is his essay on Police Reports as they relate to the EAR/ONS case. I did a complete scan of his post, without editing or changing any of his wording. However, I did censor several real-life names; that was the only change I made.
Drifter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Police Reports
One aspect of this investigation that has to be addressed is the limitations of police reports. Generally speaking, police reports are an imperfect representation of what happened. They are a subjective interpretation of what actually occurred. Rarely do victims/witnesses get to review and make changes or addendums to the "official" crime report. There are different reasons for this. One function (that LE will never admit to) is CYA. It allows the writer of the report to control what is known about the event.
Because what is written down becomes what happened (even though it may or may not be what actually happened). This is so that later in court, when an officer is cross examined about "what happened", his version is the one that will carry the most weight in court. So, for instance, confessions of suspects are not videotaped (even when video is available). Instead, the investigator writes down what he wants the suspect to confess to and the suspect (usually under some sort of duress) signs it and it becomes the "official" record. Note: this situation has changed drastically within the last few decades because of prior abuses revealed by the Innocence Project).
In the case of Mrs. [redacted by Drifter], she stated in the interview that the RO (reporting officer) neglected to put down the age of the offender and the full description because he had already pre-determined that it was the teen who had been prowling the area. So, when Capt. [redacted by Drifter] reads the report, "it does not square with what he was reading in the newspaper article". I know for a fact that [redacted by Drifter] would not want to be caught in the press disputing what a fellow officer had written down. So, now, our natural (and conditioned) response is to question not the officer who took the report but rather the witness who is disputing what was written down.
The most extreme example is the kid who sauntered out of the condo next to Offerman's during the murder investigation. If you read the "official report", there was no kid who walked out of the condo next door. The investigator who spoke to the kid didn't write anything down. So whatever the kid told him in 1979 is something that he will take to his grave. When questioned about the kid, the investigator got selective memory and wouldn't give up the kid's name. Luckily, we were able to determine the kid's name and he was eventually questioned by the SB investigators and cleared of any involvement.
In the case of the Oldsmobile. The "official report" says that a known drug trafficker was the driver of the Oldsmobile and therefore he could not have anything to do with the rape that occurred. Problem is, the drug trafficker was dead 6 months prior to the Oct. 17th, 1976 incident. So the "official report" is wrong.
With regards to the "kitten man", if [redacted by Drifter] checked the "official report" about the information provided by the witness and there was no mention of the KM, that should not be where the investigation into the matter ends. That should be where the investigation into the matter begins. The witness provided enough information whereby his contention could be verified. However, to date (and to my knowledge) no effort has been made to verify the information. (I pray that I am wrong about this).
So, in the case of the San Ramon witness, the Oldsmobile driver and the "kitten man", the reponse has been similar. Look at the "official report" and if it does not square with what is being said 30+ years later, go with what was written down originally and then discredit what the witness is now saying.
As a rule, I never question or discredit what a witness has said UNLESS and UNTIL there is a legitimate basis to do so. I have been fed bogus information in the past that has resulted in wild goose chases. But once a witness has been discredited, then I can no longer take them at their word. To date, I have found no basis to question what the witness has said about the "kitten man" incident. It may turn out that Port is right and the KM has no bearing on the case. That is something that will be determined after the KM is identified. But when you add the meowing at the window (there are media reports that Janelle and her friend thought the noise they heard was a cat) and the body-builder/Marine Janelle was dating (according to Michelle), then a picture is emerging of people who have not been identified who knew Janelle shortly before she was murdered.
One of the reasons that I prefer to communicate with witnesses via email is because I can forward EXACTLY what they have said to investigators. In the past, while talking with them on the phone, so much crucial and critical information was lost. I have looked back on notes that I have scribbled down and most times I can't make heads or tails out of my own notes. I have also received information that was passed along by a third party. When I got a chance to talk to the original witness, the information passed along had little resemblance to what was actually said by the witness because what was said originally is being interpreted by the person receiving the info verbally.
What is at issue is not whether the driver of the Oldsmobile is the EAR or a narcotics trafficker, or whether Mr. Tank Top was the EAR or some other backyard prowler who was also 5'10, muscular, sandy-haired, unafraid of dogs, who disguised his voice. The issue is not whether the KM was the EAR or the figment of imagination. The issue is whether or not these incidents were properly and thoroughly investigated. Like so many othe aspects of the EAR/ONS case, they have not been, IMO.
Put yourselves in the position of the victims and their families. Do you want the investigators to assume that these various people had nothing to do with the murder of their loved ones or do you want them to properly and thoroughly investigate these incidents, locate these suspects and then determine at that point whether they had anything to do with these crimes.
Had anyone done this prior to DMV purging their vehicle registration records, this case would have been over a long, long time ago. If the information about the drug trafficker being dead in April of 1976 was discovered in October of 1976 (and the suspicious blonde-haired driver of the Oldsmobile was the EAR) this case would have been over before it even got started.
Thorough and proper investigation. That is what was needed back in 1976. That is what is needed now.
Addendum: the witness who saw the Maggiore killer jump the fence said that the suspect was wearing a ski mask. (He was an art student). However, he provided a sketch of the suspect and in his sketch, there was no ski mask. He also described the color of the suspect's hair. Has anyone investigated that glaring inconsistency? No. Pick and choose which aspect of which conflicting report you are going to believe and don't ask the hard questions. That seems to be how things work in the real world.
47 Replies
2590 Views
Flag
Add feed to My Home
View Feed
Edited by Archangel76, 2 years ago
Profile Image
By Archangel76
Member
2 years ago
2074 Posts
End of Police Reports commentary, by Arch
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This first one is from Arch, and it is his essay on Police Reports as they relate to the EAR/ONS case. I did a complete scan of his post, without editing or changing any of his wording. However, I did censor several real-life names; that was the only change I made.
Drifter
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Police Reports
One aspect of this investigation that has to be addressed is the limitations of police reports. Generally speaking, police reports are an imperfect representation of what happened. They are a subjective interpretation of what actually occurred. Rarely do victims/witnesses get to review and make changes or addendums to the "official" crime report. There are different reasons for this. One function (that LE will never admit to) is CYA. It allows the writer of the report to control what is known about the event.
Because what is written down becomes what happened (even though it may or may not be what actually happened). This is so that later in court, when an officer is cross examined about "what happened", his version is the one that will carry the most weight in court. So, for instance, confessions of suspects are not videotaped (even when video is available). Instead, the investigator writes down what he wants the suspect to confess to and the suspect (usually under some sort of duress) signs it and it becomes the "official" record. Note: this situation has changed drastically within the last few decades because of prior abuses revealed by the Innocence Project).
In the case of Mrs. [redacted by Drifter], she stated in the interview that the RO (reporting officer) neglected to put down the age of the offender and the full description because he had already pre-determined that it was the teen who had been prowling the area. So, when Capt. [redacted by Drifter] reads the report, "it does not square with what he was reading in the newspaper article". I know for a fact that [redacted by Drifter] would not want to be caught in the press disputing what a fellow officer had written down. So, now, our natural (and conditioned) response is to question not the officer who took the report but rather the witness who is disputing what was written down.
The most extreme example is the kid who sauntered out of the condo next to Offerman's during the murder investigation. If you read the "official report", there was no kid who walked out of the condo next door. The investigator who spoke to the kid didn't write anything down. So whatever the kid told him in 1979 is something that he will take to his grave. When questioned about the kid, the investigator got selective memory and wouldn't give up the kid's name. Luckily, we were able to determine the kid's name and he was eventually questioned by the SB investigators and cleared of any involvement.
In the case of the Oldsmobile. The "official report" says that a known drug trafficker was the driver of the Oldsmobile and therefore he could not have anything to do with the rape that occurred. Problem is, the drug trafficker was dead 6 months prior to the Oct. 17th, 1976 incident. So the "official report" is wrong.
With regards to the "kitten man", if [redacted by Drifter] checked the "official report" about the information provided by the witness and there was no mention of the KM, that should not be where the investigation into the matter ends. That should be where the investigation into the matter begins. The witness provided enough information whereby his contention could be verified. However, to date (and to my knowledge) no effort has been made to verify the information. (I pray that I am wrong about this).
So, in the case of the San Ramon witness, the Oldsmobile driver and the "kitten man", the reponse has been similar. Look at the "official report" and if it does not square with what is being said 30+ years later, go with what was written down originally and then discredit what the witness is now saying.
As a rule, I never question or discredit what a witness has said UNLESS and UNTIL there is a legitimate basis to do so. I have been fed bogus information in the past that has resulted in wild goose chases. But once a witness has been discredited, then I can no longer take them at their word. To date, I have found no basis to question what the witness has said about the "kitten man" incident. It may turn out that Port is right and the KM has no bearing on the case. That is something that will be determined after the KM is identified. But when you add the meowing at the window (there are media reports that Janelle and her friend thought the noise they heard was a cat) and the body-builder/Marine Janelle was dating (according to Michelle), then a picture is emerging of people who have not been identified who knew Janelle shortly before she was murdered.
One of the reasons that I prefer to communicate with witnesses via email is because I can forward EXACTLY what they have said to investigators. In the past, while talking with them on the phone, so much crucial and critical information was lost. I have looked back on notes that I have scribbled down and most times I can't make heads or tails out of my own notes. I have also received information that was passed along by a third party. When I got a chance to talk to the original witness, the information passed along had little resemblance to what was actually said by the witness because what was said originally is being interpreted by the person receiving the info verbally.
What is at issue is not whether the driver of the Oldsmobile is the EAR or a narcotics trafficker, or whether Mr. Tank Top was the EAR or some other backyard prowler who was also 5'10, muscular, sandy-haired, unafraid of dogs, who disguised his voice. The issue is not whether the KM was the EAR or the figment of imagination. The issue is whether or not these incidents were properly and thoroughly investigated. Like so many othe aspects of the EAR/ONS case, they have not been, IMO.
Put yourselves in the position of the victims and their families. Do you want the investigators to assume that these various people had nothing to do with the murder of their loved ones or do you want them to properly and thoroughly investigate these incidents, locate these suspects and then determine at that point whether they had anything to do with these crimes.
Had anyone done this prior to DMV purging their vehicle registration records, this case would have been over a long, long time ago. If the information about the drug trafficker being dead in April of 1976 was discovered in October of 1976 (and the suspicious blonde-haired driver of the Oldsmobile was the EAR) this case would have been over before it even got started.
Thorough and proper investigation. That is what was needed back in 1976. That is what is needed now.
Addendum: the witness who saw the Maggiore killer jump the fence said that the suspect was wearing a ski mask. (He was an art student). However, he provided a sketch of the suspect and in his sketch, there was no ski mask. He also described the color of the suspect's hair. Has anyone investigated that glaring inconsistency? No. Pick and choose which aspect of which conflicting report you are going to believe and don't ask the hard questions. That seems to be how things work in the real world.
47 Replies
2590 Views
Flag
Add feed to My Home
View Feed
Edited by Archangel76, 2 years ago
Profile Image
By Archangel76
Member
2 years ago
2074 Posts
End of Police Reports commentary, by Arch
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
